CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BALBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA BALBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND CORAM: Present: RAMESH KUMARI, J. 1. The present by the applicant 30.11.2018 passed case FIR No. 167, dated 09.07.2017 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, District Sonipat in Sessions Case Report i.e. Sessions Case charges framed against them & 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of decision: 04.09.2025 BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Addl. AG, Haryana. ***** RAMESH KUMARI, J. The present applications seeking leave to appeal by the applicant-complainant against the 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, in case FIR No. 167, dated 09.07.2017 under Sections 380, 460, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered District Sonipat, vide which four accused/respondents in Sessions Case No.479 of 2016, and one Sessions Case No.86 of 2018, was presented, charges framed against them. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA -A-542-2019 Date of decision: 04.09.2025 ..APPLICANT ..RESPONDENTS CRM-A-486-2019 ..APPLICANT ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI applicant(s). Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Addl. AG, Haryana. seeking leave to appeal have been filed complainant against the two separate judgments dated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, in under Sections 380, 460, 302, 411, and registered at Police Station Barauda, /respondents, who were challaned 479 of 2016, and one CCL, against whom Inquiry was presented, were acquitted of have been filed dated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, in , and ion Barauda, challaned against whom Inquiry were acquitted of POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 2. acquittal primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and medical evidence against the four accused/respondents and (CCL)/respondent as well as failed to appreciate that the recoveries i.e. weapon weightage is prosecution witnesses. 3. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to summarize the case of the prosecution in brief are 3(i) of complaint place of occurrence his brother Ramdhari, who was a 3(ii) 09.07.2016 at about 5:15 p.m., his brother Ramdhari with other vill where his brother room, place of worship, and other rooms of the and missing. 3(iii) PW1A and FIR prepared and body was of deceased was got conducted & 2 The applicant-complainant has acquittal primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and medical evidence against the four accused/respondents and (CCL)/respondent as well as failed to appreciate that the recoveries i.e. weapon of offence is effected from them and undue is given to the alleged discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to summarize the case of the prosecution in brief are; FIR No.167 PW9A was registered on 09.07.2016, complaint PW-01A of PW-1 Balbir Singh place of occurrence on receipt of telephonic information his brother Ramdhari, who was a priest in village Barauda. PW-1 Balbir Singh, in his complaint 09.07.2016 at about 5:15 p.m., one Raghbir, S/o Dhan Singh Ramdhari was lying on a cot in an injured condition. He, along with other villagers, reached the place of occurrence, i.e., where his brother Ramdhari was found lying dead. The locks of the store room, place of worship, and other rooms of the PW7 Ramesh Chander made endorsement PW7A on statement FIR was registered. Inquest report and body was send for postmortem. of deceased was got conducted PW11 Dr. Harish Kumar s assailed the findings of the acquittal primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and medical evidence against the four accused/respondents and (CCL)/respondent as well as failed to appreciate of offence is effected from them and undue given to the alleged discrepancies in the statements of the Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to summarize the was registered on 09.07.2016, on the basis Balbir Singh when the police visited the telephonic information regarding murder of priest in village Barauda. in his complaint PW01A, stated that on Raghbir, S/o Dhan Singh informed that was lying on a cot in an injured condition. He, along agers, reached the place of occurrence, i.e., Googa Marri, was found lying dead. The locks of the store room, place of worship, and other rooms of the Marri were found broken made endorsement PW7A on statement nquest report PW7C of the dead body was for postmortem. Postmortem of the dead body Dr. Harish Kumar and medical the findings of the acquittal primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and medical evidence against the four accused/respondents and (CCL)/respondent as well as failed to appreciate of offence is effected from them and undue given to the alleged discrepancies in the statements of the Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to summarize the on the basis when the police visited the regarding murder of , stated that on that was lying on a cot in an injured condition. He, along , was found lying dead. The locks of the store were found broken made endorsement PW7A on statement ead body was Postmortem of the dead body and medical POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 samples were with blood from the spot and took into police possession vide Memo PW4A. The statements of witnesses were recorded, the site of inspected, and a site plan 3(iv) police alleging that he came to know that his brother, murdered by Mohit, son of Ajmer, Deepak @ Bhartu S/o Rattan, (CCL) Rahul @ Pakoda. murder of Ramdhari the accused had committed murder of 3(v) accused Rahul, Deepak disclosure statements PW10A to PW10D their disclosure statement Deepak got recovered Jelly MO3 which were taken into possession v PW6D, PW6 PW6E were prepared. CCL got recovered 6/H and its sketch also prepared on the identification of above Recovery of site plan was prepared vide PW 3(vi) his disclosure statement speakers MO5 and MO6 memo of recovery & 3 samples were obtained. PW7 Ramesh Chander lifted piece of cloth smeared with blood from the spot and took into police possession vide Memo PW4A. The statements of witnesses were recorded, the site of inspected, and a site plan PW7B was prepared. On 01.08.2016, PW-1 got recorded his statement alleging that he came to know that his brother, murdered by Mohit, son of Ajmer, Deepak @ Bhartu S/o Rattan, (CCL) Rahul @ Pakoda. All the accused had fled from th Ramdhari. He identified accused the accused had committed murder of Ramdhari On 08.02.2016 PW-10 Sub Inspector Rahul, Deepak and Mohit CCL was also apprehended disclosure statements PW10A to PW10D were recorded. In pursuance of their disclosure statements, accused Mohit got recovered bamboo danda MO2 which were taken into possession v PW6F respectively and their respective sketches were prepared. CCL got recovered Iron Rod MO4 6/H and its sketch PW6G was prepared. The place of occurrence also prepared on the identification of above- of site plan was prepared vide PW- Accused Amit was arrested on 05.08.2016 and on the basis of sure statement PW10G he got recovered one buffer MO5 and MO6 which were taken into police po memo of recovery PW10H and site plan PQ10 PW7 Ramesh Chander lifted piece of cloth smeared with blood from the spot and took into police possession vide Memo PW4A. The statements of witnesses were recorded, the site of the incident was was prepared. got recorded his statement PW1B to the alleging that he came to know that his brother, Ramdhari, has been murdered by Mohit, son of Ajmer, Deepak @ Bhartu S/o Rattan, (CCL) and All the accused had fled from the village after committing Deepak, Mohit and Rahul. All Ramdhari on 09.07.2016. Sub Inspector-Naresh Kumar arrested CCL was also apprehended. Their were recorded. In pursuance of Mohit got recovered danda MO1, MO2, accused Rahul got recovered which were taken into possession vide memo of recovery PW6B, respective sketches PW10E PW6C and Iron Rod MO4 vide memo PW- . The place of occurrence PW4/B was -named three accused and CCL. -10/F. was arrested on 05.08.2016 and on the basis of he got recovered one buffer MO7 and two which were taken into police possession vide PQ10/1 were also prepared. PW7 Ramesh Chander lifted piece of cloth smeared with blood from the spot and took into police possession vide Memo PW4A. was the Ramdhari, has been and e village after committing All arrested . Their were recorded. In pursuance of , got recovered , C and - was named three accused and CCL. was arrested on 05.08.2016 and on the basis of and two ssession vide POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 3(vii) named respondents were presented and inquiry report against CCL was presented. 4. including complainant statements PW1A and PW1B Ramdhari. PW statement PW registration of FI of dead body, lifted bed sheet stained with blood on the spot possession vide on 10.07.2016 on the dead body of and took the deceased’s cloth dead body of Ramdhari. tide on the mouth Ramesh Kumar PW9A. Mohit on 02.08.2016 and accused Amit & 4 After completion of investigation, challan against above respondents were presented and inquiry report against CCL was After being charged, prosecution examined 14 w including complainant PW1 Balbir Singh statements PW1A and PW1B. PW5 Balraj who identified the dead body of deceased PW7 Sub Inspector Ramesh Chander, PW1A and made endorsement registration of FIR. He also prepared site plan of dead body, lifted bed sheet stained with blood on the spot possession vide PW4A. He also got conducted the postmortem examination on 10.07.2016 on the dead body of Ramdhari from Dr. Harish Kumar and took the deceased’s clothes into police possession vide PW11 Dr. Harish Kumar proved dead body of Ramdhari. PW2 Constable Rajender took over the sealed parcels of clothes tide on the mouth of the deceased from Doctor and handed over to PW Ramesh Kumar vide PW2A. PW8 Ashok Kumar, Patwari prepared site plan PW9 Nar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police PW10 S.I. Naresh Kumar arrested accused Mohit on 02.08.2016 and accused Amit on 05.08.2016 After completion of investigation, challan against above- respondents were presented and inquiry report against CCL was After being charged, prosecution examined 14 witnesses who proved got recorded his d the dead body of deceased 7 Sub Inspector Ramesh Chander, who recorded the A and made endorsement PW7A and sent ruqa for R. He also prepared site plan PW7B, inquest report PW7C of dead body, lifted bed sheet stained with blood on the spot and took into . He also got conducted the postmortem examination Ramdhari from Dr. Harish Kumar PW11 olice possession vide PW2A. proved the factum of postmortem of Rajender took over the sealed parcels of clothes m Doctor and handed over to PW7, SI wari prepared site plan PW8A. Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged FIR arrested accused Rahul, Deepak, on 05.08.2016 and also took CCL - respondents were presented and inquiry report against CCL was itnesses who proved got recorded his d the dead body of deceased who recorded the for C and took into . He also got conducted the postmortem examination 11 rtem of Rajender took over the sealed parcels of clothes SI lodged FIR Rahul, Deepak, ook CCL POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 in protective custody on 02.08.2016 and them. PW Gulshan Kumar and of Sub Inspector Ramesh Chander of recoveries allegedly effected from demarcation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 5. innocence of accused there are two panchayats in village pana and they belong to sedative substance. On the intervening night of 08/09.07.2016 he was present at his fields near came to know that his presence Balbir Singh police that murder as they were consuming liquor and other sedative substance with Ramdhari. 6. complainant on circumstantial eviden circumstances the accused and totally inconsistent with their innocence. Learned trial Co & 5 in protective custody on 02.08.2016 and deposed PW3 Constable Sunil Kumar and PW Gulshan Kumar and PW12 PW3 Constable Sunil of Sub Inspector Ramesh Chander PW7. PW of recoveries allegedly effected from Mohit, Deepak, Rahul and CCL. PW4 ASI Gulshan Kumar is also demarcation PW4B. PW13 proved the link evidence and under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Accused in defence examined innocence of accused Mohit, Deepak, Rahul, Amit and CCL and alleged that there are two panchayats in village. Deceased Ramdhari and they belong to Khasa. Ramdhari was addicted sedative substance. On the intervening night of 08/09.07.2016 he was his fields near Gugamadi and on the morning at about 7:00 A.M. o know that Ramdhari was murdered by some unknown persons. In his presence Balbir Singh, complainant, PW police that Virender, Dainy, Atru, Ajay and Vikas murder as they were consuming liquor and other sedative substance with The Ld. Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of complainant Balbir Singh and came to the conclusion that the case is based on circumstantial evidence but the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances which are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of and totally inconsistent with their innocence. Learned trial Co deposed about recoveries from and PW4 Assistant Sub Inspector Constable Sunil collaborated the testimony PW6 Ashok Kumar is also witness Mohit, Deepak, Rahul and CCL. is also attesting witness of memo of 13 proved the link evidence and PW-14 presented report examined DW1 Vishesh, deposed about Mohit, Deepak, Rahul, Amit and CCL and alleged that eceased Ramdhari belonged to Mor was addicted to liquor and other sedative substance. On the intervening night of 08/09.07.2016 he was and on the morning at about 7:00 A.M. Ramdhari was murdered by some unknown persons. In PW1 made a statement to the Virender, Dainy, Atru, Ajay and Vikas had committed the murder as they were consuming liquor and other sedative substance with disbelieved the testimony of PW1 to the conclusion that the case is based ce but the prosecution failed to prove the which are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of and totally inconsistent with their innocence. Learned trial Court about recoveries from Assistant Sub Inspector ollaborated the testimony is also witness memo of 14 presented report deposed about Mohit, Deepak, Rahul, Amit and CCL and alleged that Mor to liquor and other sedative substance. On the intervening night of 08/09.07.2016 he was and on the morning at about 7:00 A.M. Ramdhari was murdered by some unknown persons. In made a statement to the had committed the murder as they were consuming liquor and other sedative substance with 1 to the conclusion that the case is based ce but the prosecution failed to prove the which are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of urt POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 in support of its findings 10SCC 193; Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 621 U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992(3) RCR (Crl.) 63 (SC) 7. contending inter & 6 in support of its findings relied upon C. Chenga Reddy v. Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 621 U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992(3) RCR (Crl.) 63 (SC) The applicant-complainant has challenged the acquittal inter alia that: (i) Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that murder has been committed and PW1 has specifically named all the four accused and CCL in the commission of offence. (ii) Learned trial Court has rendered a separate judgment against the CCL whereas charges against against other four accused. (iii) Fourteen witnesses have supported the prosecution case and PW1 Balbir Singh has specifically identified all the four accused and CCL in the Court but learned trial Court did not consider the merits of case and evidence available on file. (iv) Learned trial Court ignored the fact of recoveries effected on the disclosure statements and they also admitted their involvement in the murder and all the accused and CCL admitted their involvement in the murder of accused and also explained the motive in the commission of offence. But learned trial Court ignored this fact. (v) The blood was detected on the report Exs. P3 & P4 but the learned trial Court failed to appreciate this evidence. C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1196) Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 621; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992(3) RCR (Crl.) 63 (SC). has challenged the acquittal Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that murder has been 1 has specifically named all the four accused and CCL in the commission of offence. Learned trial Court has rendered a separate judgment against the CCL whereas charges against him are same as against other four accused. Fourteen witnesses have supported the prosecution case Balbir Singh has specifically identified all the four accused and CCL in the Court but learned trial Court did not consider the merits of case and evidence available Learned trial Court ignored the fact of recoveries effected atements and they also admitted their involvement in the murder and all the accused and CCL admitted their involvement in the murder of accused and also explained the motive in the commission of offence. But learned trial Court ignored this fact. But learned trial Court ignored this fact. was detected on the weapons as per the FSL but the learned trial Court failed to State of A.P. (1196) State of has challenged the acquittal Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that murder has been 1 has specifically named all the four Learned trial Court has rendered a separate judgment him are same as Fourteen witnesses have supported the prosecution case Balbir Singh has specifically identified all the four accused and CCL in the Court but learned trial Court did not consider the merits of case and evidence available Learned trial Court ignored the fact of recoveries effected atements and they also admitted their involvement in the murder and all the accused and CCL admitted their involvement in the murder of accused and also explained the motive in the commission of offence. weapons as per the FSL but the learned trial Court failed to POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 & 7 (vi) PW11 Dr. Harish Kumar of Ramdhari was a head injury, and these injuries were possibly inflicted by the weapons recovered from the accused but learned trial C (vii) The learned trial Court has unnecessarily on the fact that the case is based on evidence and in case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances complete. But the trial Court failed to appreciate the chain of circumstances statements and the recoveries effected from the accused. viii) Learned trial Court observed that Raghbir have not been cited as witnesses despite the fact that Raghbir is the one who reported the occurrence to the complainant and Satyawan, Goga Maari on the previous night of occurrence. Their evidence was not necessary. ix) There was ample evidence and other proofs available against the accused but some of them were destroyed by the police and the remaining were not appreciated by the trial Court. The learned trial Court acknowledged the police’s negligence but erred in failing to appreciate the recovery of the weapon of offence from the accused. x.) The learned trial Court has based its findings on hypothetical assumptions and conjectures, the actual facts and evidence on record. Dr. Harish Kumar testified that the cause of death was a head injury, and these injuries were d by the weapons recovered from the Court ignored this fact. The learned trial Court has unnecessarily put emphasis that the case is based on circumstantial in case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances needs be well-knit and the trial Court failed to appreciate the in the form of the disclosure statements and the recoveries effected from the accused. Learned trial Court observed that Satyawan and have not been cited as witnesses despite the fact is the one who reported the occurrence to Satyawan, who left the deceased at on the previous night of occurrence. Their evidence was not necessary. There was ample evidence and other proofs available some of them were destroyed by the police and the remaining were not appreciated by the e learned trial Court acknowledged the police’s negligence but erred in failing to appreciate the recovery of the weapon of offence from the accused. The learned trial Court has based its findings on hypothetical assumptions and conjectures, while ignoring the actual facts and evidence on record. testified that the cause of death was a head injury, and these injuries were d by the weapons recovered from the put emphasis circumstantial in case based on circumstantial evidence, knit and the trial Court failed to appreciate the the disclosure and have not been cited as witnesses despite the fact is the one who reported the occurrence to who left the deceased at on the previous night of occurrence. Their There was ample evidence and other proofs available some of them were destroyed by the police and the remaining were not appreciated by the e learned trial Court acknowledged the police’s negligence but erred in failing to appreciate the The learned trial Court has based its findings on ring POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 8. relevant material placed on record. 9. no eyewitness of the murder of deceased Ramdhari name anybody in the commission of offence Ramdhari which took place on the intervening night of 8/9.7.2016 initially the FIR of accused and CCL is m 01.08.2016, while recordi Now coming to the evidentiary value of the statement of complainant named the accused persons on the basis of rumours. He also alleged that he verified the facts but his source of veri Singh also deposed that Balraj and Nafe the accused and CCL were apprehended and taken into protective custody only on the basis of absconded from house. The law is well settled & 8 xi) The learned trial Court wrongly believed the defence version that the accused were falsely implicated in this case due to rivalry in the panchayat elections but has been brought on record to prove this xii) The learned trial Court has failed to evidence and the applicant-complainant has, therefore, for allowing the applications seeking grant to file the appeal We have heard learned counsel for the relevant material placed on record. The present case is based on circumstant witness of the murder of Ramdhari. PW Ramdhari. He in his statement PW1 name anybody in the commission of offence hari which took place on the intervening night of 8/9.7.2016 initially the FIR PW9A was registered against unknown persons. The name of accused and CCL is mentioned for the first time by 01.08.2016, while recording his supplementary statement Now coming to the evidentiary value of the statement of Balbir Singh. He during cross named the accused persons on the basis of rumours. He also alleged that he verified the facts but his source of verification is not known. also deposed that he came to know about the accused through Balraj and Nafe but they were not cited and examined as witnesses. Thus, the accused and CCL were apprehended and taken into protective custody only on the basis of suspicion. There was no evidence that acc absconded from house. The law is well settled The learned trial Court wrongly believed the defence falsely implicated in this case due to rivalry in the panchayat elections but no suitable document rd to prove this fact. ourt has failed to appreciate the complainant has, therefore, prayed seeking grant to file the appeals. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The present case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is PW1 Balbir Singh is brother of PW1A dated 09.07.2016 did not name anybody in the commission of offence of murder of his brother hari which took place on the intervening night of 8/9.7.2016 and was registered against unknown persons. The name entioned for the first time by PW1 Balbir Singh on ng his supplementary statement PW1B. Now coming to the evidentiary value of the statement of the PW1 during cross-examination stated that he named the accused persons on the basis of rumours. He also alleged that he fication is not known. PW1 Balbir he came to know about the accused through Inder, re not cited and examined as witnesses. Thus, the accused and CCL were apprehended and taken into protective custody There was no evidence that accused absconded from house. The law is well settled that is suspicion can never The learned trial Court wrongly believed the defence falsely implicated in this case due no suitable document appreciate the prayed parties and perused the ial evidence as there is is brother of .2016 did not of murder of his brother and was registered against unknown persons. The name on PW1 examination stated that he named the accused persons on the basis of rumours. He also alleged that he Balbir Inder, re not cited and examined as witnesses. Thus, the accused and CCL were apprehended and taken into protective custody used that is suspicion can never POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 become substitute for proof doubt cannot take the place of legal proof ensure that suspicion is place of suspicion and suspicion whosoever strong for grave take the place of proof. The prosecution is required to prove its case leading cogent and Singh complainant proved that accused were named in his supplementary statement PW1B on the basis of rumour 10. equivalent to their confession to commission of offence. As per report of PX of FSL, one multi coloured printed cloth piece, described as Blood was detected on all the four Exhibits. The report and another and Cloth piece/ Moreover, the Therefore, the alleged recoveries of Mohit and Deepak with the blood found on the clothes of deceased The alleged recoveries learned trial Court and to pass a judgment of & 9 become substitute for proof. Strong suspicion or coincidence creating grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. It is the ensure that suspicion is not mistaken for legal proof suspicion and suspicion whosoever strong for grave take the place of proof. The prosecution is required to prove its case leading cogent and convincing evidence and the statement of Singh complainant proved that accused were named in his supplementary statement PW1B on the basis of rumour. The alleged recoveries from accused and CCL are not equivalent to their confession to commission of offence. As per report of , four exhibits were deposited i.e. one multi coloured printed cloth piece, described as Neem danda, (4) one bamboo danda Blood was detected on all the four Exhibits. he report Ex. PX does not reveal that blood found on and another danda Ex.4 matches with the blood found on the and Cloth piece/chaddar Ex.2. Moreover, the dandas deposited in the FSL Therefore, the alleged recoveries of Mohit and Deepak could not be connected with the blood of deceased or with the blood found on the clothes of deceased alleged recoveries from the accused learned trial Court for the purpose of rendering the judgment of convic and to pass a judgment of guilt against the accused and CCL. . Strong suspicion or coincidence creating grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. It is the duty of the Court to not mistaken for legal proof. Rumour cannot take suspicion and suspicion whosoever strong for grave doubt cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution is required to prove its case by and the statement of PW1 Balbir Singh complainant proved that accused were named in his supplementary The alleged recoveries from accused and CCL are not equivalent to their confession to commission of offence. As per report of Ex. four exhibits were deposited i.e. (1.)one dirty white parna, (2.) one multi coloured printed cloth piece,( 3.) one wooden danda danda. Blood was detected on all the four Exhibits. does not reveal that blood found on danda Ex.3 matches with the blood found on the parna Ex.1 deposited in the FSL were disintegrated. Therefore, the alleged recoveries of dandas effected from accused be connected with the blood of deceased or with the blood found on the clothes of deceased. from the accused were rightly ignored by the rendering the judgment of conviction guilt against the accused and CCL. . Strong suspicion or coincidence creating grave to Rumour cannot take cannot by PW1 Balbir Singh complainant proved that accused were named in his supplementary The alleged recoveries from accused and CCL are not Ex. 2.) danda Ex.3 Ex.1 effected from accused be connected with the blood of deceased or ignored by the tion POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-A-542-2019 CRM-A-486-2019 There is no alleged extra judicial confession of accused There is no witness who could have seen the accused and CCL in the company of deceased The implication of accused suspicion without any cogent and convincing evidence. The accused and CCL were nominated challan basis of mere rumour record cogent and convincing evidence to link the accused with the alleged offence of the murder of chain of circumstances from which accused and CCL, contrary to the innocence of drawn. 11. applications filed by the applicant same are hereby dismissed passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE September 04, 2025 Poonam Sharma & 10 There is no alleged extra judicial confession of accused here is no witness who could have seen the accused and CCL in the company of deceased lastly. The implication of accused and CCL is primarily suspicion without any cogent and convincing evidence. accused and CCL were nominated challan basis of mere rumour and during trial also the prosecution fa record cogent and convincing evidence to link the accused with the alleged of the murder of deceased Ramdhari circumstances from which the conclusion of hypothesis of guilt of accused and CCL, contrary to the innocence of In view of the above discussion applications filed by the applicant-complainant same are hereby dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE September 04, 2025 Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No There is no alleged extra judicial confession of accused and CCL. here is no witness who could have seen the accused and CCL in the and CCL is primarily the on the basis of suspicion without any cogent and convincing evidence. accused and CCL were nominated challaned and tried on the and during trial also the prosecution failed to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to link the accused with the alleged deceased Ramdhari or to prove on record complete the conclusion of hypothesis of guilt of accused and CCL, contrary to the innocence of the accused and CCL may be discussion, we find no merit in the complainant seeking leave to appeal. The he judgments of acquittal dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, are hereby upheld. (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE . here is no witness who could have seen the accused and CCL in the the on the basis of d and tried on the iled to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to link the accused with the alleged complete the conclusion of hypothesis of guilt of may be no merit in the . The of acquittal dated 30.11.2018 hereby upheld. POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document